From minnesotaindependent.com:
"Rep. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) is pushing for more new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, but the Shakopee Republican is undeterred by reports about the effects of carbon-emitting energy production on global warming. His reason: He believes God will prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuel..."
JB: Oy Vey!
AE: Half the continent was buried in snow a few weeks ago. Yep, the world is warming up! Hurry up, people! Reduce your carbon emissions exponentially by holding your breath until you expire.
SB: AE, don't be so disingenuous. Despite all that snow, 2010 was the second warmest year on record. And you probably KNEW that.
AE: On record since when? Was someone keeping track 100,000 years ago? Or a million? Or a billion? Just curious where the benchmark comes from.
SB: Andrew, don't be deliberately ignorant. I refuse to argue with fools.
NS: You the man. Deliberate Ignorance is the last stronghold of the defeated.
SB: I've wasted WAAAAAY too many hours "arguing" this topic with people on other forums, to bother here. Anyone who knows enough to ask these questions, knows enough to know that they are red herrings. And I'm just tired of playing. ...
If you want to be taken seriously, be serious.
NS: Incidently how does a guy that spends his day thinking (which I understand is the most basic form of your job (TOTALLY AWESOME)) manage to give a crap about politics? I can't seem to spend more than 8 seconds talking/thinking about it without losing all my faith in humanity, gaining a desire to drink myself to death, and trying to forget that I have an opinion anyways. I mean HOW DO YOU LIVE? I need some help on that one man I really do I respect you for it but I can't understand it.
SB: the truth is, Neil, I've become far less political than I was back when I actually was an elected official (in my late teens/early 20's, I was elected a couple of times to local school boards, just like Michael Moore -- in fact, Michael was... in a young school board member's caucus that I helped to start, back before he started making movies).
I think that time in office gave me some perspective -- for one, I was quite a bit more liberal then than now, and had to represent people who DIDN'T vote for me, as well as those who did. So I learned a certain detachment from my own views, at least for purposes of argument sake.
In the end, though, the main factor is that I grew up with a father who was to the right of Ronald Reagan on many issues, while I was a socialist (and the criteria for being a socialist then were a lot tougher than merely voting Democratic). We argued politics incessantly, but we always ended our arguments as friends. He taught me to value character over beliefs, which is why I tend to get more upset over HOW someone presents their beliefs than what they actually think. If they can argue honestly, with an understanding of their own biases, and without name calling or TOO much hyperbole..I'll be happy to talk with them.
Mind you, I don't always live up to my own standards, but that's what I aspire to.
JC: 'Global Warming' is nothing more than poor marketing...had they called it 'Global Climate Change' from the start there would be far fewer arguments.
SB: maybe. But I doubt it.
JC: Yeah...who am I kidding...there will always be someone that thinks that the sight of snow or frost on a window throws the whole 'warming' argument out of the window.
AE: What is ignorant about wanting to know where the benchmark comes from? Seriously. Honest question. How far can we go back with temperature records?
Me: the 1880s.
AE: Thanks Rich. So let's see, if I use a scientifically conservative guesstimate that the Earth is about 200 million years old, that means we've been keeping an accurate record of temperatures for about .00000065 % of the Earth's life.
JC: But Andrew...the bible says that the Earth is only thousands of years old
Me: Very few people believe the earth is young. It is dishonest to suggest that there are only two choices.
SB: Rich is right, instrument-based temperature records go back about 130 years. Proxy records (measured indirectly through a variety of methods, of highly varying degrees of reliability) can be developed to take us back as far as you'd like to trust the science. Let's say, for sake of argument, a couple hundred thousand years (though we have insights into earlier climates as well).
So when I say "warmest on record," I mean during the 130 years in which temperature data has been collected by instruments.
It is not any one set of temperature data, however, that give reason for concern. It's the convergence of theory and observation that point to man made climate change. In fact, any valid argument that the earth ISN'T warming due to man made causes, needs to explain why not -- because there are provable reasons why it should, established by Arrehnius (a chemist) nearly 120 years ago and based entirely on physical properties of CO2 and other gases that are known to several significant digits.
To date, nobody's come up with a sound explanation that takes into account both the current warming trend, AND factors in what we know to be true about CO2's impact in the atmosphere, other than the anthropogenic global warming model.
until they do, the way that science works is that you have that first burden of proof to meet, before you can be taken very seriously. If your theory doesn't do at LEAST as good a job of explaining what we observe and know as the current theory, it's not a very good one.
JC: No shit Sherlock
SB: 200 million years is not scientifically conservative. It's non-scientific. The current estimate is in the 4.5 billion year range. Shaving off 4 billion years from that isn't being "scientifically conservative" but rather just ignoring science.
But that said, it's irrelevant to the argument over man made climate change. Because nobody disputes that the climate is always in flux. Just what role we are playing in the current changes. And the evidence nearly all points to us having a significant --even driving -- impact.
That is, until someone can explain what I posted above -- i.e., what OTHER causes are responsible, and why isn't man-made CO2 responsible even though every physical chemistry measurement says it should be?
In science, precedent is not explanation. Just because the earth has warmed before, is not sufficient explanation for why it is warming now.See More
Me: Scott is right. The debate is not about climate change.
In fact, it isn't even really about the anthropogenic piece. The debate is really a political one.
SB: The science is largely settled. Rich is right the issue is what, if anything, to do about it. Science can't answer that one.
Me: Precisely, Scott. The government solution should not be the default choice.
AE: Scott, I will readily concede that I have neither the knowledge base nor the experience to argue the subject with any credibility. I've seen all kinds of theories, none of which have really stuck in my mind aside from the one that has everyone's attention. I'll admit it - I'm more than a little bit apathetic toward the subject – in terms of science, anyway. What I do know is that my wardrobe has varied throughout the years in response to cycles in nature, some of which, it appears perfectly plausible, last longer than a few lifetimes. Do humans impact the environment? Absolutely. Must we be good stewards? Absolutely. Do I have any faith in the projections of Earth’s demise by carbon emissions? I don’t. Whether that makes me a fool, a damn fool, or merely a skeptic – well, only time will tell. In the meantime, human history is rife with abuse and manipulation of the masses, and that is a constant that no amount of facts and figures will ever lay a finger on so long as human nature exists. The “what to do about it” is, in my line of thinking, what concerns me most.
SB: So let me understand this -- and I really don't want to put words in your mouth, so correct me if I'm wrong: you're willing to acknowledge science so long as it doesn't disagree with your beliefs, or inconvenience you in any way. Is that about right?
BTW, no one argues that climate change will lead to the "earth's demise." Merely large scale extinctions of species, massive dislocations and suffering of people (half a billion people live in floodplains that are likely to be innundated and made inhospitable -- and unfarmable -- within the next 50 years or so because of climate change) and significant losses to property. The earth will survive all of that quite nicely, thank you. So will mankind.
But it's the quality of life, and the extent of suffering that we're willing to impose on one another, that concerns those of us who take this seriously. People talk about the cost of stopping or mitigating climate change, but there are also large costs of inaction, so the real issue is who ends up footing the bill? That's where I'll plead ignorance -- I have my own opinions over whether profits, or people, are more important, but I do not have a liberal arts education, and can't put those opinions into any sort of rational moral or philosophical framework.
RS:No need to apologize. Skepticism used to be highly valued in science.
AE: Science is invaluable. Information is power. And power is abused. I don't just acknowledge science, I recognize that it is perfectly impartial to my beliefs, convenient or not. And in this age in human history, the scientific establishment (meaning people, not science itself) are a pretty necessary component of the new oligarchy.
SB: it still is, Rich. But it's always been about INFORMED skepticism. Asking questions is essential, and as I've stated many times in this debate, or any other scientific discussion, scientific truth is always contingent -- theories change and evolve constantly, so there's no point in getting too attached.
that said, there's a difference between skepticism, and simply refusing to accept the parts of the data or theory which are at odds with your personal beliefs. Einstein was skeptical about many of the implications of quantum theory -- a theory which, ironically, he helped to create. He famously said, "I refuse to believe that God plays dice with the universe" (paraphrasing slightly). Yet, he understood that those ideas in quantum theory which caused him the greatest discomfort, were a critical part of its success (and it is a very successful theory, from the point of view of how well, and how precisely, it allows us to predict results).
IMO, discarding parts of a theory which you don't even understand, is not skepticism. It's cynicism, and I don't think they're the same thing.
AE: Tell you what, if the definition of a cynic permits them to be jolly, you may call me a cynic.
You and your sons have fantastic and admirable minds. I wish the one of them would stop unfriending me.
SB: with regard to said son, sometimes, it's necessary to "unfriend" people on Facebook, in order to remain friends in real life. I hope you agree that the latter is a higher priority. ;-)
Me: "Informed skepticism" is a value judgment. Belittling skeptics and quashing dissent is a political bludgeon frequently used to silence dissent, even by scientists against other scientists.
AE: SB, agreed. Please tell him I say hello. Rich, excellent observation. One Peter Duesberg comes to mind.
SB: sorry, rich, but unlike some areas of public discourse, and in brainstorming, in science there IS such a thing as a dumb question.
Me: With all due respect, that is an a priori appraisal which assumes your side is unassailably correct while those on the other side are dumb or ignorant. That is not science.
The next step is to catagorize opposition scientists as tools of Big Oil, or lacking expertise, or outside the mainstream. That is also not science.
SG: I so agree with you on this subject, Scott. We, as human beings, should be responsible for our actions and the impact they impose on our earth. Being ignorant and having your head buried in the sand is not a solution. If temps have only been measured since the 1800's, we should be smart enough to look at the data and live accordingly. It's sad that this subject has become political! I think that in the next 50 years, fresh drinking water may be a hot commodity on a global scale.
BTW: my wife decided she really likes this Scott guy!
SB: Rich -- On this topic (the nature of science) I will push back a little -- aside from spending 27 years of my life working as a research scientist, I have also spent an even longer time reading and thinking about the history and philosophy of science. And I think that you might have missed my point.
To wit: I claimed that, "...in science, there IS such a thing as a dumb question". And I will stand by that 100%. The reason there are dumb questions is because science, unlike most other world views, is a cumulative way of creating knowledge. Once I've established, for instance, that CO2 has the physical property of absorbing light energy in one portion of the spectrum, and re-emitting it in another part, I do not have to go back and prove that over and over again. Furthermore, it is only open for re-examination if a body of data emerges which is inconsistent with that observed "fact" or unless a theory which is otherwise very compelling, suggests that some other outcome ought to be expected.
It's this aggregation of knowledge ("standing on the shoulders of giants" in the words of Newton) that has allowed modern science to be such an effective tool for explaining the physical world.
In the climate debate, there are plenty of dumb questions that are passed off as skepticism. "What about solar variability?" is a good example. Yes, solar radiation does vary, but the pattern of that variation does NOT correlate to current temperature trends -- and this has been reasonably well established. So to continually ask the question as if it is a new thought, or a matter of great scientific uncertainty, is arguably a dumb question. Now, it doesn't mean the person asking is dumb -- they may be unaware that this question has been resolved, or they may be introducing it for any number of reasons.
But it doesn't warrant, IMO, the sort of serious reconsideration each and every time it's asked, unless new data or new theory somehow bring the accepted answer into doubt.
There are any number of other examples I could provide, but my point is merely this: science encourages skepticism and curiosity, but that does not mean that it must, or even SHOULD, treat every idea as being equally plausible, or of equal worth. In a scientific framework, there are LOTS of bad ideas, and dumb questions that do nothing to actually move our understanding of the world forward.
As far as disparaging research findings due to the source of funding: yeah there are people who will do that. I'm not one of them.
Me: I fear you also have missed my point. Nowhere have I discussed science, the properties of matter, or the reliability of outcomes of chemical reactions. I have restricted my comments to the behavior of people in the name of science.
It isn't about science. It's about the manipulation, interpretation, and political use of science according to a specific point of view.
It's the political equivalent of unfalsifiability.
No comments:
Post a Comment